If you haven't heard the talking points this week from the White House and various surrogates, they are something old and something new.

The first point is this, everyone against the president in any fashion, well they are all massive racists.

I know anyone reading this is probably thinking, that isn't new. Obama has been doing this for a while and that is true but now the level of accusations out there is getting a little crazy. Maybe if one is lucky, the charges this time will be so broad and transparent that those who don't already question the claims will start to do so.

A few initial points need to be established.

First, President Obama does not have the approval of the nation. Even in many instances where he does not yet full disapproval, he does not have approval as it is well below 50% of the nation. The latest CBSNews poll (The boat anchor of polls out there for Democrats) shows Obama at 44%-approval and 44% disapproval. So we have a chart from pollster.com that looks like this.

Next up we have the generic party ballot which has been very predictive in general election outcomes. It looks like this....

As you can see there has been a Democratic drop and a huge Republican surge.

It should be clear to everyone with a pulse at this point that the promised recovery and thus election salvation of Democrats and their cementing of majority party status for a generation, hasn't occurred. In fact everyone fully engaged understands that not only have people lost their jobs, they've quit looking as understood by the labor participation rate. So per the infamous chart, we don't have the predicted 7%ish or lower unemployment. We still have 9.5% and the 9.5% would be 12+% if people were still looking for jobs.

Quote:

* Long term unemployed - 6.8 million
* Forced Part Time - 8.6 million
* Marginally attached to the labor force - 2.6 million

Of the Marginally attached, 1.2 million are discouraged.

Now some of you may be scratching your head and wondering what all of this has to do with racism, and that is simple. The fact that I wrote this, that you read it, and if you have any doubts or concerns related to President Obama due to this information, well that is RACIST.

If you've been called racist in the past week, you are actually in pretty good company.

This thread can keep you informed about the growing number of racists out there. As the allegations come in they can be posted here and revealed for what they truly happen to be.

In the meantime look for the following "dog whistles" that might reveal you or someone else to be a racist.

-You want to be fully employed.
-You think 99 weeks of unemployment is enough for someone.
-You wonder where the millions of green jobs have gone to.
-You wonder about the oil spill in the Gulf.
-You think trillion dollar a year deficits are bad.
-You question why San Francisco wants to ban soda and pet purchases but give guidelines for pot purchases.
-You question the health care reform.
-You question financial reform.
-You question cap and trade.
-You are a white male who is not rich.
-You are a banker.
-You work on Wall St.
-You hold an auto bond.
-You don't think you are greedy.
-You don't blame Bush for everything.
-You'll take that job that Americans won't do.

It is understood that all of these are "dog whistles" or secretly coded words for racism. Anyone uttering them is probably racist per the Obama administration and the NAACP.

Sorry but the that has always declared that they want to organize humanity "scientifically" and thus engaged in eugenic practices is the left.

Ignorance is bliss for some though.

Examples?

Here's some of mine:

Quote:

The British National Party (BNP) is a far-right political party formed as a splinter group from the National Front by John Tyndall in 1982. The BNP restricted membership to people it referred to as "Indigenous Caucasian", effectively excluding non-whites, until 2009 when its constitution was challenged in the courts on grounds of racial discrimination.

Nazism is a politically syncretic variety of fascism...usually supported by the far right (military, business, Church), fascism is historically anti-communist, anti-conservative and anti-parliamentary.

Go come back with when you've read about how many people communism has killed. Also no one cares what "scholars" who generally are to the left politically, conclude. They aren't the ones putting the guns in people's mouths and pulling the triggers. Scholars are just the 'enablers' of these historical madmen.

Also much like yourself, the left automatically declares their own racist actions to be... not racist so of course they are excluded.

Conservatives aren't far-right enough....it seems SOME conservatives are not racists so Nazis hate them for that.

They probably hated them for noting they were socialists as well.

Quote:

Still doesn't counter the claim that racism is inherently right-wing.

Since the claim was never established it doesn't need to be countered. A couple links with a few labels and conflicting ones at that establishes nothing.

Quote:

I know how many it has killed.

Well when scientific socialism equates your fellow humans to no more than livestock, the bullets fly fast and furious.

Quote:

But we're talking about RACISM aren't we? Or did you change it to murder and forget to send me the memo?

You've not linked to any group killing for the cause of race in this thread. Historical examples are left wing and remain so.

Here is but one example...

Quote:

#

Racism and Communism can be quite compatible. During World War II, Stalin ordered the deportation of entire nations deemed disloyal: Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Meskhetians, Kalmyks, and ethnic Germans. Russia's German- speaking minority was deported to Siberia early in the war. As Stalin's forces pushed further westward into non-Soviet territory, Stalin found new reservoirs of ethnic Germans under his dominion. Some were taken east as slave laborers; others were expelled west as penniless refugees. After the Red Army had done its work, provisional governments dominated by native Communists - especially in Poland and Czechoslovakia - decided that Stalin's treatment of ethnic Germans had been too lenient.

Even before World War II, Czechoslovakia had a German minority of about 25% of its population. Poland's pre-war ethnic German population was less substantial, but by joint Allied decision Poland's western border was pushed westwards to "compensate" for Soviet annexations on Poland's eastern border. The Communist-dominated governments of Czechoslovakia and Poland decided to expel these ethnic Germans en masse, after expropriating them of almost all their property, with full knowledge that in the harsh post-war conditions large numbers of the refugees would not survive. Out of about 12 million ethnic Germans living within the new borders of Poland and Czechoslovakia, about 11 million were expelled. Of these, about 1.5 million perished of hunger, exposure, and other deadly post-war conditions. Were their deaths merely poetic justice, as many people then and since have thought? Historian Alfred-Maurice de Zayas answers no:

All victims of injustice deserve our respect. The crimes committed by the Nazis and Soviets against the Poles in the years 1939 to 1945 move us to essential identification with them. The merciless revenge that poured over the entire German civilian population of Eastern Europe, in particular in those sad years of the expulsions from 1945 to 1948, should also awaken compassion, for in either case the common people - farmers and industrial workers, the rich and the poor - all were the victims of politics and of politicians... Every crime is reprehensible, regardless of the nationality of its victim - or of the victimizer. (Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans, 1944-1950)

It is far easier to blame Communist ideology for man-made famines than for the terrible revenge post-war governments in Poland and Czechoslovakia exacted against their German minorities. Yet there is a real connection. On the theoretical level, Stalin had set the precedent for imputing collective guilt to "counter-revolutionary" ethnicities as well as "counter-revolutionary" social classes, when he ordered the deportations of Volga Germans, Chechens, Kalmyks, Crimean Tatars, and other nationalities (see Robert Conquest, The Soviet Deportation of Nationalities). On the practical level, expropriating the German minority gave the provisional Czech and Polish governments a stockpile of wealth with which to buy support. Moreover, the chaos of the expulsion period helped the Communists to crush internal opposition.

Communist Poland and Czechoslovakia also killed along standard Communist lines. Execution of anti-Communists and dissidents, as well as internal Party purges were significant, particularly during the remaining years of Stalin's rule. The deaths of the expelled German minority, however, made up the greater portion of the blood on the hands of Communist Poland and Communist Czechoslovakia.

See Seg, what you forget is when you have a peasant class that you want to motivate, it is much easier to do so against GREEDY outsiders who are plundering your national resources, thus appealing that nationalism as well.

Quote:

True... I guess that's the job of UK and US troops at the present time.

It's so fun when you actually note that we sanction our murders and actually try to govern them. Meanwhile the Narco-state of Mexico has more murders in a year just for drugs than we have had in ten years of war but of course they are the good guys.

Quote:

Or recorders of the madmen's insanity when it is blown out.

Blown out? You'll have to introduce me to the meaning of that colloquialism.

Quote:

Racism is a doctrine which is inherently anti-left.

Sorry but the actions have proven otherwise. Strident declarations don't change that fact.

Quote:

I can see how you as a right-winger might not want to face that but it revolves just the same...

What you don't want to face is the card that keeps the scared and huddled masses eating from your hand instead of questioning.

"A long line of inmates solemnly enters and exits a prison yard through a revolving door. As the lone black inmate reenters society, he peers into the camera with a menacing glance. He is the only inmate to do so.

The ad described above was created by George H.W. Bush's campaign as part of a broad strategy to terrify America by, as psychologist and political consultant Drew Westen explains, playing on "fears of the dangerous, lawless, violent, dark black male."

...Their mission isn't to find the truth, but to plant the seed in viewers' minds that maybe, just maybe, the President and the Attorney General are the same type of militants seen wielding a nightstick and repeatedly slurring whites on Fox News. As the Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page wrote, "Now the New Black Panthers are being used to vilify a black president as being soft on black racism. Coming soon, I am sure, to campaign attack ads near you."
~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-ra..._b_651187.html

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

"...Now the New Black Panthers are being used to vilify a black president as being soft on black racism..."

Excuse me? Vilify?

President Obama’s Justice Department continues to stonewall inquiries about why it dropped a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. The incident, two Black Panthers in paramilitary garb at a polling place near downtown Philadelphia. One of them brandished a nightstick at the entrance and pointed it at voters and both made racial threats. Many called the Philadelphia incident " “the most blatant form of voter intimidation ever seen." This is what President Obama’s Justice Department dropped a voter intimidation case against. With no explanation of why!

Over this past weekend the NAACP condemned the Tea Party for racism. What has the NAACP said so far about the Obama Administration dismissing voter intimidation charges against this Philadelphia New Black Panther racism? Has the NAACP condemned this sort of voter intimidation? Oh and since we're speaking about the NAACP, let's surface this incident, of a USDA Official Saying She Didn't Give 'Full Force' of Help to White Farmer, so as to win points with NAACP audience.

President Obamas Justice Department continues to stonewall inquiries about why it dropped a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. The incident, two Black Panthers in paramilitary garb at a polling place near downtown Philadelphia. One of them brandished a nightstick at the entrance and pointed it at voters and both made racial threats. Many called the Philadelphia incident " the most blatant form of voter intimidation ever seen." This is what President Obamas Justice Department dropped a voter intimidation case against. With no explanation of why!

Over this past weekend the NAACP condemned the Tea Party for racism. What has the NAACP said so far about the Obama Administration dismissing voter intimidation charges against this Philadelphia New Black Panther racism? Has the NAACP condemned this sort of voter intimidation? Oh and since we're speaking about the NAACP, let's surface this incident, of a USDA Official Saying She Didn't Give 'Full Force' of Help to White Farmer, so as to win points with NAACP audience.

I guess you missed in the article that it was Bush who dropped it, not Obama-

"The truth is, it was President Bush's Justice Department, not Obama's, that made the decision not to pursue criminal charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for alleged voter intimidation at a Philadelphia polling center in 2008."
~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-ra..._b_651187.html

The Bush administration downgraded the case to civil charges. The DOJ under Obama pursued the guy with the nightstick and won, which is far more than the Bush administration had done in similar cases of voter intimidation, but maybe the reasons he had were because in those cases the offenders were white and so it's not much of a story, is it?

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

"Won" what? Where is the prosecution by the Obama Administration of this New Black Panther racist who practiced voter intimidation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

She clearly explains it.

Indeed... NAACP racism.

Official Didn't Help White Farmer 'Full Force'
FoxNewshttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...-white-farmer/Days after the NAACP clashed with Tea Partiers over racism allegations, video surfaces showing USDA official regaling NAACP group with story about how she withheld help to bankrupt white farmer — video that now has forced her to resign.

Official Didn't Help White Farmer 'Full Force'
FoxNewshttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...-white-farmer/Days after the NAACP clashed with Tea Partiers over racism allegations, video surfaces showing USDA official regaling NAACP group with story about how she withheld help to bankrupt white farmer — video that now has forced her to resign.

Shockingly overt racism from this woman of color. Some of the more overtly racist comments:

Sherrod explained in the video that, at the time, she assumed the state or national Department of Agriculture had referred the white farmer to her. In order to ensure that the farmer could report back that she was indeed helpful, she said she took him to see "one of his own" -- a white lawyer.

"I figured that if I take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him," she said.

His own kind?!?

However this past part was poetic justice:

"There are jobs at USDA and many times there are no people of color to fill those jobs because we shy away from agriculture. We hear the word agriculture and think, why are we working in the fields?" she said. "You've heard of a lot of layoffs. Have you heard of anybody in the federal government losing their job? That's all I need to say."

She may not have "lost her job", but I am sure her resignation was not her idea...

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

"THis is Mexican Land" and "Go back to Germany you Nazis". All in front of the police there who were not arresting her based on skin color, poor English, and her wearing a quasi military uniform. Her rights were upheld. Even as she was trying to get the police to silence the others around her who were shouting back at her.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

Shockingly overt racism from this woman of color. Some of the more overtly racist comments:

Sherrod explained in the video that, at the time, she assumed the state or national Department of Agriculture had referred the white farmer to her. In order to ensure that the farmer could report back that she was indeed helpful, she said she took him to see "one of his own" -- a white lawyer.

"I figured that if I take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him," she said.

His own kind?!?

However this past part was poetic justice:

"There are jobs at USDA and many times there are no people of color to fill those jobs because we shy away from agriculture. We hear the word agriculture and think, why are we working in the fields?" she said. "You've heard of a lot of layoffs. Have you heard of anybody in the federal government losing their job? That's all I need to say."

She may not have "lost her job", but I am sure her resignation was not her idea...

Just another case of Brietbart lying through selective editing:

Quote:

Farmer's wife says fired USDA official helped save their land

The wife of the white farmer allegedly discriminated against by the USDA's rural development director for Georgia said Shirley Sherrod "kept us out of bankruptcy."

Eloise Spooner, 82, awoke Tuesday to discover that Sherrod had lost her job after videotaped comments she made in March at a local NAACP banquet surfaced on the web.

Sherrod, who is black, told the crowd she didn't do everything she could to help a white farmer whom she said was condescending when he came to her for aid.

"What he didn't know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me was, I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him," Sherrod said in the video, recorded March 27 in Douglas in southeast Georgia.

But Spooner, who considers Sherrod a "friend for life," said the federal official worked tirelessly to help the Iron City couple hold onto their land as they faced bankruptcy back in 1986.

"Her husband told her, ‘You're spending more time with the Spooners than you are with me,' " Spooner told the AJC. "She took probably two or three trips with us to Albany just to help us out."

Spooner called Sherrod Tuesday morning.

"She's very sad about it," Spooner said. "She told me she was so glad we talked. I just can't believe this is happening to her."

Sherrod, in her first interview after the clip surfaced, told the AJC the damning video was selectively edited. She said the video posted online Monday by biggovernment.com and reported on by FoxNews.com and the AJC completely misconstrued the message she was trying to convey.

"For Fox to take a spin on this like they have done, and know it’s not the truth … it’s very upsetting," said Sherrod, 62, who insisted her statements in the video were not racist. "I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So I didn't give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough."

Sherrod noted that few news reports have mentioned that the story she told happened 24 years ago -- before she got the USDA job -- when she worked with the Georgia field office for the Federation of Southern Cooperative/Land Assistance Fund.

"And I went on to work with many more white farmers," she said. "The story helped me realize that race is not the issue, it's about the people who have and the people who don't. When I speak to groups, I try to speak about getting beyond the issue of race."

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced Sherrod's resignation in a statement released to Fox News Monday nigh.

"There is zero tolerance for discrimination at USDA, and I strongly condemn any act of discrimination against any person," Vilsack said in the statement.

"They were just looking at what the Tea Party and what Fox said, and thought it was too (politically) dangerous for them," Sherrod said of the agriculture department.

The release of Sherrod's statements came a week after the NAACP issued a resolution calling some elements of the National Tea Party racist for comments made against President Barack Obama and African-American congressmen during the health care debate.

Sherrod was appointed to her position in by Obama's administration in July 2009 to manage more than 40 housing, business and community infrastructure and facility programs, and more than $114 billion in federal loans.

The AJC is working to recover the full video footage of Sherrod's speech to the Douglas NAACP. A production company, DCTV3 in Douglas, recorded the event at the local NAACP chapter's request and is waiting for the chapter's permission to release the full speech.

"We broadcast it on cable," Wilkerson said. "Somebody probably picked it up and recorded it, then put it on YouTube. That's probably why the video looks so shabby."

Sherrod said the circumstances made it absurd for her to have made any racist comment.

"There were some white people there. The mayor (of Douglas) was there," Sherrod recalled. "Why would I do something racist if they were there?"

Mayor Jackie Wilson told the AJC she did introductions at the banquet but had to leave for another event before Sherrod's speech.

Wilson said she did not hear of any controversy in the weeks following the banquet, adding she was shocked to learn of Sherrod's resignation.

"She's not someone I know extremely well, but I respected her and thought she was doing a good job. And she seemed to be a fair person," said Wilson, who was city manager before becoming mayor 2 1/2 years ago. "I just hate that this kind of thing happened in Douglas."

"I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So I didn't give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough."

If they were black though, I would have done more???? No racism there at all....

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

"I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So I didn't give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough."

If they were black though, I would have done more???? No racism there at all....

It was a story about how (24 years ago) she overcame her own kneejerk instincts to actually do the right thing and help the white farmer (whose wife now considers her a friend).

If you would simply READ what I posted instead of just reiterating the original out-of-context quote, you might actually understand that.

It was a story about how (24 years ago) she overcame her own kneejerk instincts to actually do the right thing and help the white farmer (whose wife now considers her a friend).

So why did the White House demand her resignation yesterday? Why did NAACP condemn her actions this morning? If her "kneejerk instincts" as you suggest was institutional racism against white farmers, why didn't she resign her position then? Pontificating now for an injustice committed then does not seem to excuse it... what remains questionable is why were her actions not condemned in that NAACP venue then when she gave that speech? Did they not care? The NAACP is condemning her actions now but they didn't seem to care then...

Quote:

Originally Posted by FormerLurker

If you would simply READ what I posted instead of just reiterating the original out-of-context quote, you might actually understand that.

The video was not edited as claimed and what part of the claimed quote, and there are several, are you suggesting was taken out of context? Moreover, do you extend the same "out of context" excuse when others are accused of racism?

So why did the White House demand her resignation yesterday? Why did NAACP condemn her actions this morning? If her "kneejerk instincts" as you suggest was institutional racism against white farmers, why didn't she resign her position then? Pontificating now for an injustice committed then does not seem to excuse it... what remains questionable is why were her actions not condemned in that NAACP venue then when she gave that speech? Did they not care? The NAACP is condemning her actions now but they didn't seem to care then...

The kneejerk reactions of both the NAACP and whoever in the Obama administration forced her to resign are shameful. They greatly over-reacted to edited & selective quotes that turned a story about overcoming racism to one of demonstrating racism. They are way too terrified by the right-wing echo chamber noise machine.

If she treated the farmer with a racial bias, then why are both the farmer and his wife on record as specifically saying she was instrumental in helping them keep their farm? When the alleged victims of racism say there was no racism, then what is left but another dishonest and desperate conservative attack?

Quote:

The video was not edited as claimed

And you know this.... HOW?
Have you seen the original?
Link??

Edit 2 - Breaking News from CNN

Quote:

NAACP retracts criticism of former USDA staffer, saying it was "snookered" by deceptive editing of her remarks.

Good on them. Hopefully she will be asked to "un-resign" from her position as well.

that turned a story about overcoming racism to one of demonstrating racism.

Would you be so forgiving if it was a white USDA official that denied black farmers their due?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FormerLurker

NAACP retracts criticism of former USDA staffer...

They plan to retract their unfounded racism charges against the Tea Party too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FormerLurker

TThey are way too terrified by the right-wing echo chamber noise machine.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw unfounded racism charges... everyone gets hurt and there is no need for it. As we have seen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FormerLurker

Hopefully she will be asked to "un-resign" from her position as well.

Once you are thrown under the bus by the White House there is no escape... while Shirley Sherrod may be a victim here if she did indeed help the white farmer (still being investigated) there are lots of victims of unfounded racism charges hurled by the NAACP itself that never see an apology...

It is an indisputable fact that the video clip shows only a portion of her remarks.

It is obvious that the video was EDITED to show the portion of her remarks OUT OF CONTEXT of the entire story she told. The remarks were purposefully cherry-picked out of her entire speech to create the (apparently false) impression that a government employee denied government benefits to a white farmer because of his race.

Quote:

Would you be so forgiving if it was a white USDA official that denied black farmers their due?

Maybe - maybe not.

It depends, as always, on the entire CONTEXT of the remarks, including whether anyone actually was denied their due (the farmer says emphatically that he was not, in this case), whether the incident was before or during government service, (24 years before, in this case).

Quote:

They plan to apologize to the Tea Party too?

On what grounds, exactly?

Quote:

Once you are thrown under the bus by the White House there is no escape...

You are correct that she will most likely not be un-fired.

FWIW, the Sec. of Ag. just said on CNN that the White House was not involved, and he made the decision on his own. He didn't believe her to be racist - just the fact that her comments (if edited and presented completely out of context) were capable of creating controversy that would make it difficult for her to do her job effectively.

She was placed on leave immediately, and the request for her resignation was made very soon thereafter. I still think that he should have waited a day or two, instead of making the decision based on a Brietbart video highlighted on FOX News.

It is an indisputable fact that the video clip shows only a portion of her remarks.

That's true but how much of a portion of her remarks are necessary to make a determination? I have watched several clips and she herself does not deny what she said. Do we have to witness the entire speech before forming an opinion? Do you or does the NAACP extend such latitude before issuing racism charges?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FormerLurker

It is obvious that the video was EDITED to show the portion of her remarks OUT OF CONTEXT of the entire story she told.

No; you're wrong here. That is your opinion. It is not obvious there is editing, nor do you have evidence of such. Moreover, context is interpretative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FormerLurker

The remarks were purposefully cherry-picked out of her entire speech to create the (apparently false) impression that a government employee denied government benefits to a white farmer because of his race.

Again, this is your opinion here. For example, if people stand in front of polling places with batons perhaps they are there for peaceful reasons too. But I tend to believe my eyes more than others' opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FormerLurker

You are correct that she will most likely not be un-fired.

And I doubt whether the NAACP will retract its unfounded charges of racism against the Tea Party.

Do you see the problem here with frivolous racism charges that prompted all this?

And thus I find myself actually agreeing with something said by Glenn Beck...

If there is more to the clip, then let's see it. From the parts I have seen and the portions I have read quoted, the whole thing was racially motivated. From the part about not giving all the help she could, to the part about sending him to "his own kind".

I don't want to see anyone unfairly removed from their jobs, but if this is how they are doing their job, then maybe it was the right thing. Lets see the full context. I call for that a lot, and in this situation I can do no less.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

That's true but how much of a portion of her remarks are necessary to make a determination? I have watched several clips and she herself does not deny what she said.

She was telling a story about something that happened many years ago as part of a longer monologue about racial change and coming together. Again - I think Glenn Beck has summed up the situation pretty well:
“she was simply relating an anecdotal story from 1986 to make a point about how her racial perceptions have changed”

According to the clips and quotes I’ve seen, she states specifically that the entire experience changed her outlook on race, and that she did in fact help the farmer couple and even become friends with them, and that all of this was clearly stated in her remarks to the NAACP.http://cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010...rod.farmer.cnn

Do you have a link to the clips you’ve seen that say differently?

Quote:

Do we have to witness the entire speech before forming an opinion?

We don't "have" to do anything, but it would be wise. In this case, the omitted portions of the speech clearly refute the implications that a government employee denied benefits based on race, or that the government employee harbors any racist sentiment whatsoever. That does not mean this will not be true of all remarks and speeches which are presented as evidence of racism.

Quote:

No; you're wrong here. That is your opinion.

Likewise!

Quote:

It is not obvious there is editing, nor do you have evidence of such.

It is an undeniable fact that it is edited.

If it were not edited, then it would consist of the entire speech, and not just a selected portion. The selection of what to include in and what to omit from the clip was a conscious decision made by the person who EDITED the clip.

Quote:

Moreover, context is interpretative.

In this case, it's quite clear that the interpretation suggested by the clip and the way it was presented is incorrect, and that the proper interpretation is not possible without the context of the entire story she told.

Quote:

Again, this is your opinion here. For example, if people stand in front of polling places with batons perhaps they are there for peaceful reasons too. But I tend to believe my eyes more than others' opinion.

Yes, it is my opinion that the clips were edited with the specific intent of taking her remarks out of context in an attempt to paint her as a racist. It is also my opinion that the facts of this case make that clear beyond any reasonable interpretation. You are free to argue that brietbart had no political motivation for the selectiveness of his editing, but it's an insanely weak argument.

Quote:

And I doubt whether the NAACP will retract its unfounded charges of racism against the Tea Party.

But that's not what the NAACP said. They did not say the Tea Party was racist. They said that there were many individuals in the Tea Party that have demonstrated their racist attitudes and called upon the Tea Party leaders and spokespersons to repudiate them (as they have now done with the Tea Party Express).

Quote:

Do you see the problem here with frivolous racism charges that prompted all this?

Are you trying to argue that the signs depicting a watermelon patch on the White House lawn, and the President of the United States with a bone through his nose, or dressed as an African witch doctor, are really not racist but simply taken out of context?

It is an indisputable fact that the video clip shows only a portion of her remarks.

It is obvious that the video was EDITED to show the portion of her remarks OUT OF CONTEXT of the entire story she told. The remarks were purposefully cherry-picked out of her entire speech to create the (apparently false) impression that a government employee denied government benefits to a white farmer because of his race.

The video was NOT edited to take remarks out of context. Failing to show the full length of the video is not the same as editing it. You make it sound like specific information was edited out of the flow of speech there. She was sharing a personal anecdote. The anecdote is presented in full. She has not claimed that her actions with the farmer were misrepresented. Instead the claims are that the outcome didn't end up hurting the farmer and she the focus is desperately being shifted to her personal journey on this matter rather than her actions and her words.

Quote:

Maybe - maybe not.

It depends, as always, on the entire CONTEXT of the remarks, including whether anyone actually was denied their due (the farmer says emphatically that he was not, in this case), whether the incident was before or during government service, (24 years before, in this case).

Well first claiming that certain groups will only help certain groups or that you should go to "your own" for help is an offensive way to frame this issue. Her "growth" was to claim that she was wrong about white people always being willing to help white people and instead declaring she now sees it is about class warfare instead which is merely trading one vice for another. The moral of her anecdote is still incredibly insulting and amounts to 'I learned white people can be poor too.'

Again if some official declared that through incredible personal grow they now understood that black couple can actually love their children too. It is ridiculously insulting.

Quote:

On what grounds, exactly?

Well first of all, the tea party claims aren't made on videotape evidence, all footage of the event the claims were made in regard to clearly show no racial epitaphs having been made and a $100,000 reward for evidence of them has produced no claims.

Second, the claims made with regard to a few photos taken at tea party events are just outright bogus at maximum or at minimum suffer from no less that poor word choice on levels well above those that are forgiven for this woman. Claiming Obama is similar to Hitler isn't racist. Claiming Obama's health care plan is voodoo medicine isn't racist. Claiming Obama has turned us all into slaves and he is the master isn't racist. Similar claims have been made in modern times about almost all presidents. They are policy disagreements and in no form are attributed to the race of Obama nor to any races in general.

Quote:

You are correct that she will most likely not be un-fired.

FWIW, the Sec. of Ag. just said on CNN that the White House was not involved, and he made the decision on his own. He didn't believe her to be racist - just the fact that her comments (if edited and presented completely out of context) were capable of creating controversy that would make it difficult for her to do her job effectively.

She was placed on leave immediately, and the request for her resignation was made very soon thereafter. I still think that he should have waited a day or two, instead of making the decision based on a Brietbart video highlighted on FOX News.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FormerLurker

And now the conservative narrative is moving from "she's a racist", to "Obama shouldn't have fired her because we said she's a racist".

And thus I find myself actually agreeing with something said by Glenn Beck...

It doesn't matter who says what. It is clear that there won't be a paper trail and even if there were, the partisan Democrats will defend the actions and lay the blame at the feet of those who could take no action, aka Republicans. It is clear her resignation was asked for and that she gave what was asked for.

As for whether she is racist or not, I don't consider the claimed growth of her little anecdote to validate the claim of moving beyond race. At best is speaks to a mere recognition that people of a certain race can actually have bad things happen to them. It in no form suggests an understanding of equality. Saying that she figured whitey would help whitey, but now understands that whitey sometimes won't help that rare and occasional poor whitey in no form removes race from the equation and speaks to a growth so minimal that it is shocking that anyone would try to defend it.

Are you trying to argue that the signs depicting a watermelon patch on the White House lawn, and the President of the United States with a bone through his nose, or dressed as an African witch doctor, are really not racist but simply taken out of context?

How exactly do you selectively edit a sign at a protest?

I've not seen the watermelon patch one, but caricature by nature involves taking traits of the person being caricatured and exaggerating them. Was Bush really Hitler, or riding a horse in the midst of major policy decisions since he was continually portrayed as a cowboy, or was a he really a dunce even though he had a MBA from Harvard, or was he really a drunk even though he had given up drinking long before he assumed office?

Witch doctors do exist in Africa, but also existed in Europe and the term has been used critically to refer to any non-traditional medicine.

Tell me what forms of caricature are approved of for President Obama because it remains clear that the real reasoning for that answer is "none because he is black" and that is a racist thought in and of itself.

According to the clips and quotes I’ve seen, she states specifically that the entire experience changed her outlook on race

Her outlook on race is not at issue; what she said is. Very simple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FormerLurker

We don't "have" to do anything, but it would be wise. In this case, the omitted portions of the speech clearly refute the implications that a government employee denied benefits based on race, or that the government employee harbors any racist sentiment whatsoever. That does not mean this will not be true of all remarks and speeches which are presented as evidence of racism.

Trumptman did an excellent job here stating clearly what is at issue - I repeat his good post =>

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

The video was NOT edited to take remarks out of context. Failing to show the full length of the video is not the same as editing it. You make it sound like specific information was edited out of the flow of speech there. She was sharing a personal anecdote. The anecdote is presented in full. She has not claimed that her actions with the farmer were misrepresented. Instead the claims are that the outcome didn't end up hurting the farmer and she the focus is desperately being shifted to her personal journey on this matter rather than her actions and her words..

Quote:

Originally Posted by FormerLurker

It is an undeniable fact that it is edited.

See above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FormerLurker

If it were not edited, then it would consist of the entire speech

YouTube features portions of speeches; that is the whole point. You don't need to drink the whole bottle of wine to determine if it is rotten wine...

Quote:

Originally Posted by FormerLurker

But that's not what the NAACP said. They did not say the Tea Party was racist.

The NAACP charge, of "racist elements within the Tea Party" was lodged at nobody in particular and said to the anonymous Tea Party in general, thus it was a charge of racism lodged at the entire organization and entirely without foundation.I am in the Tea Party as are many others I know. The insult was lodged at us. An apology would be appreciated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FormerLurker

They said that there were many individuals in the Tea Party that have demonstrated their racist attitudes and called upon the Tea Party leaders and spokespersons to repudiate them (as they have now done with the Tea Party Express).

Context? You seem to extend it for Shirley Sherrod but are quite willing to accept baseless accusations against anonymous Tea Party members as gospel. Why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FormerLurker

Are you trying to argue that the signs depicting a watermelon patch on the White House lawn, and the President of the United States with a bone through his nose, or dressed as an African witch doctor, are really not racist but simply taken out of context? How exactly do you selectively edit a sign at a protest?

I am assuming you have never been to a protest in your life! Every protest in Washington, and everywhere else, draws all types of individuals... that doesn't mean that simply because one sign is viewed in a certain way that is the way the protest organization feels! Code Pink holds frequent rallies in Washington and I have seen some weird signs by some of the folks attending. Do they all reflect Code Pink's platform and beliefs? Another example, all through eight years of Bush's administration frequent protests had kooks displaying imagery of burning Bush in effigy... Racist? DId these exhibits reflect the protest organization as racist?

My god - the semantic gymnastics over what constitutes "editing" is giving me a headache.

Who here has actually viewed the video as originally posted by Brietbart? The video even has titles over a purple screen. It’s not raw video… it’s not unedited video… it is in fact video that has been processed by video editing software, in a process that any reasonable human being will recognize is called “editing”.

Will you take FOX News' word for it? Or have they become the liberal media all of a sudden?

Also from the above FOX story concerning the newly-released full and unedited video:

Quote:

In the earlier version of the video Sherrod, then Georgia director of rural development, is seen telling a story about assistance she provided to a white farmer 24 years ago.

The video released by the NAACP Tuesday shows Sherrod explaining she initially didn't help the farmer with "full force," but realized she was wrong and went on to help him save his farm.

Sherrod, who is black and was working at the time for a nonprofit group, said she learned that the plight of poverty goes beyond race.

"When I made that commitment I was making that commitment to black people and to black people only," she said in the video released Tuesday. "But you know, God will show you things. ... You realize that the struggle is really about poor people."

The video excerpt that aired Monday focused on Sherrod's admission that she was reluctant to help the white farmer in part because so many black farmers were suffering.

The Monday excerpt excluded the end of Sherrod's story, seen Tuesday, in which she talks of helping save the white farmer's property from foreclosure.

"Working with him made me see that it's really about those who have versus those who don't," she said later in the video. "And they could be black, they could be white, they could be Hispanic -- it made me realize that I needed to help poor people."

My god - the semantic gymnastics over what constitutes "editing" is giving me a headache.

Who here has actually viewed the video as originally posted by Brietbart? The video even has titles over a purple screen. It’s not raw video… it’s not unedited video… it is in fact video that has been processed by video editing software, in a process that any reasonable human being will recognize is called “editing”.

Will you take FOX News' word for it? Or have they become the liberal media all of a sudden?

Also from the above FOX story concerning the newly-released full and unedited video:

So you want to divert the discuss to one of the broad use of edit, as in to mean any video that has been processed in any form, including even being processed to be broadcast, over the narrower use of edit, as in to cut, or modify material so as to alter the intended outcome.

I specifically addressed this. You've ignored it and repeated yourself. It's very clear rather than address the racism of the woman, that you would rather conflate light and heavy editing.

You are right FL that in the broadest sense of the word, since the broadest sense involves processing the video in any form, that the video has been edited. Copying the original tape and digitizing it so it could be used for news presentation qualifies it for that definition. However that wasn't the claim. The claim was that the tape had undergone a heavy edit that altered the outcome and understanding of the woman's words. That was addressed and you've ignored it because you want to kill the messenger rather than address the message.

Again, the reasoning of the woman was insulting. If a white person said, "And I ended up helping that black baby, after sending that couple off to be helped BY ONE OF THEIR OWN because I guess I realized they can love their children sometimes," it would be viewed as offensive language and an offensive outcome.

Realizing white people can be poor too is not growth. Switching from strident to light racism while adding classism is not growth. It is merely trading one set of bad reasoning for another.

You do realize that the "growth" this woman is explaining was overcoming her basic desire to avoid doing her job and the wonderful "happy ending" is that she... actually did her job, for one white couple, 26 years ago. That is quite the low bar to applaud.

More than 1,200 supporters of the English Defence League (EDL) went on a violent rampage through Hanley in Stoke-on-Trent, last Saturday. Football hooligans, known fascists and anti-Muslim fanatics gathered in the city centre.

On Friday night the words “Islam Scum” and “EDL” were daubed on the walls of a mosque in the Normacot area.

And at the end of the demonstration hundreds of EDL supporters swept through an Asian area attacking homes, shops and cars.

As the EDL gathered, supporters chanted, “Muslim bombers off our streets.” But within a few hours it had become unquestionably racist. “If you hate all Pakis clap your hands”, they shouted.

Weyman Bennett, joint secretary of Unite Against Fascism said, “EDL supporters attacked black and Asian people – and whites who they claim are race traitors.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

So you want to divert the discuss to one of the broad use of edit, as in to mean any video that has been processed in any form, including even being processed to be broadcast, over the narrower use of edit, as in to cut, or modify material so as to alter the intended outcome.

I specifically addressed this. You've ignored it and repeated yourself. It's very clear rather than address the racism of the woman, that you would rather conflate light and heavy editing.

You are right FL that in the broadest sense of the word, since the broadest sense involves processing the video in any form, that the video has been edited. Copying the original tape and digitizing it so it could be used for news presentation qualifies it for that definition. However that wasn't the claim. The claim was that the tape had undergone a heavy edit that altered the outcome and understanding of the woman's words. That was addressed and you've ignored it because you want to kill the messenger rather than address the message.

No. You are wrong And you are quite possibly lying about your understanding of what editing is. And I'm not the one that keeps diverting the discussion - you and Camp David are the ones who keeps trying to deny the video was edited... when even the poster child for rightwing media says specifically that the video was edited.

Someone selected the exact portions of the video to keep, and which portions to discard. This selection process is commonly called "editing". It is you that are attempting to muddy the discussion - and now you've picked up the new tactic of trying to differentiate between light editing and heavy editing. The tape was edited - period. The editor of the tape specifically chose to show the portions of the story that would make the subject appear to be admitting to racism affecting the performance of her federal job.

To argue otherwise is to demonstrate the degree to which some will go to bend reality to fit their political narrative. You can continue to spin all the denials of simple fact you want - I'm done with this particular question. It was edited, and I am not going to argue that point any longer with those who choose to ignore the basic definition of the word.

I'm not even going to give you the satisfaction of a detailed debunking of your ridiculous attempt to set class-warfare bait by putting words in the woman's mouth. So... yes, you're right... the evil class-warrior woman who worked for the evil nonprofit was trying to help a scheming peasant family keep its farm at the expense of the wealthy nobles in the boardroom at the bank. And everyone who has ever volunteered or taken a job providing assistance to poor people in any way is engaging in class warfare. Yep - got it - makes perfect sense.

Im beginning to think that trumpt is a synonym for straw in some obscure language or dialect somewhere.

I don't know why I'm bothering to continue a discussion with a bunch of reality-denying soldiers of rightwing political propaganda. No wonder I'm the only non-conservative with anything to say on the matter. I think I'll just go back to lurking and watching you all gang up on Jimmac. This place isn't just overrun by rightwing extremists, it's nothing but a complete rightwing circle jerk.